I started to post this in response to another thread, Atlanta Airport Bans Guns, but I decided it would sidetrack the discussion and started a new thread instead. I put it here instead of Firearms because the issue touches everyone.
The question is... is this where we're headed - or is it what those who write anti-gun laws are trying to prevent?
From Time Enough for Love, by Robert Heinlein, when the main character, Lazarus Long, is visiting his hometown of Kansas City in 1916 (ignore the time travel issue; the novel is science fiction):
The first paragraph is, I think, what many people are worried might happen; the last one points out what happened in the past. It seems to me that the latter situation worked better. The question is - why? Because of population pressure? More people = more opportunities to kill each other? Because the "common person" didn't want to have to worry about guns? Because owning a gun became less common due to changes in society - certainly, fewer people go out hunting for meat today than they did in the past. When people starting keeping guns for hunting, there was no licensure... now the laws are massive and complex, and appear to be aimed at keeping people from owning guns legally - which takes us down to "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" - which, AFAIC, is a dangerous situation - a more dangerous one that allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns and cracking down on criminals instead.
What do other people think?
The question is... is this where we're headed - or is it what those who write anti-gun laws are trying to prevent?
From Time Enough for Love, by Robert Heinlein, when the main character, Lazarus Long, is visiting his hometown of Kansas City in 1916 (ignore the time travel issue; the novel is science fiction):
He recalled another time he had visited his old hometown - what century? - sometime during the Diaspora, he thought - when a citizen venturing out into its filthy canyon streets wore a steel helmet simulating a wig, a bulletproof vest and codpiece, spectacles that were armor, gloves that covered brass knucks, and other concealed and illegal weapons - but rarely went out into the streets; it was more discreet to stick to transportation pods and go outdoors only in the guarded suburbs - especially after dark.
But here and now guns were legal - and no one wore them.
The first paragraph is, I think, what many people are worried might happen; the last one points out what happened in the past. It seems to me that the latter situation worked better. The question is - why? Because of population pressure? More people = more opportunities to kill each other? Because the "common person" didn't want to have to worry about guns? Because owning a gun became less common due to changes in society - certainly, fewer people go out hunting for meat today than they did in the past. When people starting keeping guns for hunting, there was no licensure... now the laws are massive and complex, and appear to be aimed at keeping people from owning guns legally - which takes us down to "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" - which, AFAIC, is a dangerous situation - a more dangerous one that allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns and cracking down on criminals instead.
What do other people think?